03/28/2003 01:05 PM RES

HB 208-HUNTING SAME DAY AIRBORNE
CHAIR FATE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 208, "An Act relating to hunting on the same day
airborne; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1016
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Hugh Fate, Alaska State
Legislature, testified that HB 208 would make some changes to
existing statute in that it gives additional authority to the
Board of Game to evaluate the management of the resource for
sustained yield, rather than [managing] on just a prey
population basis. He explained that current statute only allows
for this very limited means for making a determination, even
though many other factors actually play into a total evaluation
of prey situations.
MR. POUND said the bill also adds language to allow the
commissioner of [the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)]
to permit airborne or same-day-airborne shooting for predator
control if it is determined by the Board of Game that predation
is a key to the problem. Currently, this form of management may
only be done from an in-flight, moving aircraft. Mr. Pound said
these changes give the appointed experts on the Board of Game
and the commissioner [of ADF&G] valuable, effective tools in an
effort to manage game for sustained yield. He urged the
committee to support HB 208.
Number 0866
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked if an agent of ADF&G would be doing
the shooting and how the agent would be defined and chosen.
MR. POUND offered his understanding that it could either be an
agent of ADF&G or an individual who is permitted by the
commissioner; it would be a special permit.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked for clarification regarding those
responsible for doing the shooting. She said this really
concerned her.
Number 0761
BLAINE HOLLIS, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL),
testified that with regard to the agency issue, [DOL's] view is
that it really doesn't change the status quo on that. He said
with regard to the two changes to the bill, one would clarify
whether both land-and-shoot and airborne shooting are allowed,
whereas currently there is some question about whether land-and-
shoot would be allowed. He said DOL's view is that probably the
best reading of the current statute is that both are allowed
currently, but the bill would clarify that and remove a
potential ambiguity from the statute, clarifying that both types
of predator control, land-and-shoot and aerial, are available to
the department pursuant to subsection (a).
MR. HOLLIS said the second change that the bill would make is to
clarify that in addition to just considering prey population
objectives, the board and the department could also look at
harvest objectives and the other objectives that are specified
in AS 16.05.255(g), whereas currently there is some ambiguity
about whether they are just limited to looking at prey
populations or whether they may also consider harvest
objectives. The bill would make those two clarifications, but
it doesn't really go to the question - assuming that a predator
control program is implemented under subsection (a) - of who
could engage in it.
MR. HOLLIS said the language in the statute currently provides
that a person may. It is [DOL's] reading of the statute, in its
current form, that it is not limited just to department
employees, and that if a program were instituted pursuant to
[subsection] (a), the department could authorize agents or other
persons to participate in such a program.
CHAIR FATE, sponsor of HB 208, offered his understanding that
[persons participating in the program] would be agents of the
department.
MR. HOLLIS, in response, said that's if it's how the department
structures it.
Number 0592
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE said this is a very big thing to her. She
asked who those persons [participating in the program] would be,
how many there would be, and how often they could participate.
MR. HOLLIS, in response, said the reality is that the statute,
in its current form, doesn't really limit that, and [DOL's] view
is to largely leave that to the department to determine and
fashion an appropriate predator-control program to address the
needs. There is a limitation in the second section of the
statute, to just department employees, but that's for a
different type of program; that's a separate type of game
management program. The type of program contemplated under
subsection (a) is really two different ways of dealing with
predator control. Under current law, only departmental
employees are allowed to engage in management programs that
involve aerial shooting without going through all kinds of steps
that are outlined in [subsection] (a), but [subsection] (a)
contains no limitation on who may participate. He said in DOL's
view, it essentially leaves it to the department and the board
to structure a program to meet the appropriate needs on the
ground at the time.
Number 0478
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF offered his understanding that one of the
former governors of Alaska used to be an agent in predator
control for aerial wolf hunting. He said it was set up at that
time to be done through an agent that worked within the
department. Representative Wolf related his understanding that
the department, commissioner, and Board of Game would have the
ability to structure it as an agent for the department who would
be authorized to engage in predator control through this bill.
MR. HOLLIS suggested that the statute in its current form does
that; he said he doesn't think the bill changes that. The two
things that the bill seeks to change don't really go to the
question of whether an agent may participate in the program.
The two changes in the bill go to the following: one, whether
the shooting can be both land-and-shoot and aerial or just one
of them; and, two, the type of population objectives that the
board and the department can look at in deciding whether to
implement [such a program]. Neither of those changes really
addresses who may participate in the program. Mr. Hollis
offered his view that current law would be unchanged by this
bill with regard to that issue.
Number 0316
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if there is a provision in the bill
regarding the harvesting of pelts from animals shot through this
program, and if so, who would own those pelts. He indicated his
concern is that the pelts are not wasted.
MR. HOLLIS said he didn't think those issues were addressed
either in the bill or in current statute.
CHAIR FATE said it isn't addressed in this bill or meant to be.
He said he suspected it would probably be dealt with another by
another section of the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if this subject was covered in another
area.
CHAIR FATE answered that it will be covered because there are
other statutes that cover the treatment of hides and the
trapping and sealing of those hides, but they are not in this
particular section.
Number 0180
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO turned attention to page 2, sub-
subparagraphs (i) and (ii). He asked if there are diseases that
can spread from predators to prey or if that would be unusual.
MR. HOLLIS deferred the question to ADF&G.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO remarked, "If the answer was yes, then
would it be a situation where we would want to eliminate
predator and prey to eliminate the disease ...."
MR. HOLLIS said he really didn't know the answer to that, but
it's not an issue that is affected by this bill. He said that
is a reflection of current law and it wouldn't be changed.
Number 0093
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said another way to control predators is
with [Compound] 1080, a poison used in bait. He asked if that
was still in use, prohibited, or no longer available.
MR. HOLLIS said he didn't know.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said it was pretty effective but also
pretty devastating in that predators would lose their hair, walk
in circles, whine and yell, and then die a miserable death.
Number 0004
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the bill allows the public
[to participate] in same-day-airborne shooting.
TAPE 03-20, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. HOLLIS, in response, said his view is that the law already
allows that. This bill would clarify that a person authorized
pursuant to an appropriate program could either engage in
shooting from the air or could engage in land-and-shoot, if that
were deemed necessary and appropriate. He said the bill
clarifies that both options are available for a predator-control
program.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if Ballot Measure 6, voted on in
[2000], would be contradicted or overturned by this bill.
Number 0109
MR. HOLLIS said he thought people who may testify later would
say so, but that is not [DOL's] view. He said his understanding
is that the 2000 referendum did not affect subsection (a); it
affected only subsection (b), a different approach that would
authorize departmental employees to engage in airborne predator
control without having to go through all of the steps specified
in subsection (a). The 2002 referendum removed the word "agent"
from that section, he said; although prior to the 2000
referendum, subsection (b) authorized not only department
employees but also agents of the department to engage in that
type of activity under subsection (b), and it removes that. Mr.
Hollis said DOL's view is that removing that essentially created
the situation whereby only departmental employees can operate
under subsection (b), but it didn't impose any limitation on who
a person is under subsection (a).
Number 0217
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how [ADF&G] has used subsection
(a) historically.
MR. HOLLIS deferred the question to [ADF&G].
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if the historic use of that
section would play any part in the determination of whether this
bill might run up against the initiative [as a matter of law].
MR. HOLLIS remarked, "No; ... more than two years has passed.
... There's a couple of ways of looking at it. You could say
it's only an amendment or even if it were somehow viewed as a
referral, it's been more than two years."
Number 0274
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked, if it were inside the two-year
period, whether the courts would look at the historic facts of
how the department had used [subsection] (a) to make that
determination.
MR. HOLLIS, in response, said the court would look at factors
like how the department had implemented the section in perhaps
discerning the intent of the statute. He said he was unsure of
whether [the court] would look at that in terms of deciding
whether the constitutional limitation on amending or repealing a
referendum is implicated.
CHAIR FATE said because of time constraints, public testimony
would not be closed during this meeting and would be continued
during the next hearing on the bill.
Number 0476
DOROTHY KEELER testified in opposition to HB 208. She provided
the following testimony:
It's hard to believe that this hearing is not taking
place in the 1800s, when the only good wolf was a dead
wolf. Fortunately, the world population has become
better educated since then and we are counting on
their revulsion of what this bill allows to end aerial
predator control with a tourism boycott, just like it
did in 1993.
My husband, Leo, was on the McGrath Adaptive
Management Team, and has all the studies [ADF&G] paid
for that did not support predator control. We both
felt it odd that none of those studies were posted on
the ADF&G web site. Rest assured, however: the media
can find them posted on ours.
John Blackstone from CBS News, "Eye on America,"
covered our work to protect the McNeil River bears
twice in 1995. He covered our work to protect the
Toklat wolves in 1999, and stories of that effort are
still posted on the CBS News web site. He stands
ready to help us spread the word on this.
I am currently freelancing for CBS News. That's why I
have filmed, on TV-quality broadcast video, every
Board of Game meeting and testimony concerning that
issue. That is why I am filming this hearing as we
speak. That is why we created a web site devoted to
this issue and have showcased it on four of our other
web sites, two of which currently rival the daily
traffic of KTUU, Channel 2, web site.
Number 0641
Since reason and logic have apparently been abandoned,
we are fighting this with the only weapon left to us -
world opinion. Are you really prepared for the
tourism boycott that your actions are leading to?
This bill, if enacted, will launch a tourism boycott
that will make the one in 1993 tame by comparison,
crippling our fragile economy.
Actually, due to the speed and reach of the Internet,
and the studies by ADF&G that prove that overhunting
is the cause of the decline - and just look at the
bull-cow ratio in McGrath to verify that - I feel the
outcome will be swifter and far more damaging.
Choosing to start predator control to increase moose
numbers is like using DDT to increase crop yield.
Both are guaranteed to work for the short term, but
the long-term consequences, both planned and
unexpected, will not be worth the cost. The worldwide
traveling public will see to that. However, it's not
too late to void this fiasco. I urge you to vote
accordingly.
MS. KEELER, in response to a question from Chair Fate, said she
and her husband are wildlife photographers who have specialized
in filming the Toklat wolves, the McNeil River bears, [other]
bears, eagles, and wolves throughout Alaska. Ms. Keeler
clarified that she was referring to her and her husband's
photographic work.
Number 0798
ROD ARNO testified. Mr. Arno noted that he has been attending
the Board of Game [meetings] for the last 10 years representing
the Alaska Outdoor Council, and has been a professional hunter
for the last 30 years. Expressing support for HB 208, he
suggested the bill will help the state achieve economic
stability through resource development while increasing the
opportunity for 29,000 Alaskan hunters to provide moose for
their families to eat.
MR. ARNO said the change from prey population's being the
"trigger" to harvest objectives - as well as those prey
population objectives - is important for the Board of Game. For
example, 10 years ago, GMU [Game Management Unit] 13 had a
population of approximately 23,000 moose; after 10 years of no
predator control that population has fallen below 10,000.
Furthermore, he said under AS 16.05.255(g) the population
objective is set between 20,000 and 25,000 moose for that area.
MR. ARNO said the problem of just going by population objectives
is the difficulty in counting each moose. He suggested that
this bill would make it much easier to record the reported
harvest. He said the reported harvest objective for GMU 13 is
from 1,200 to 2,000 moose, whereas the average 10 years ago for
GMU 13 was 921 moose. Today, he said, that's fallen down to 430
[moose], which is below the level that the board determined
necessary of 600 [moose] for subsistence use. Furthermore, the
board estimates 3,000 subsistence moose hunters in GMU 13 [will
be competing for] 150 subsistence permits. He suggested that
the bill will provide a better record for the Board of Game to
recognize that those harvest objectives are not being met.
Number 1005
MR. ARNO said since the Knowles Administration stopped all
predator control, 56 percent of moose populations identified for
intensive management by the board are declining. He suggested
it was important for the legislature and for Alaskan voters to
keep in mind the fact that airborne wolf hunting and land-and-
shoot wolf-hunting tools are banned in 60 percent of the state
because of federal laws; he said there's another 20 percent of
the state where predator control, due to habitat limitations,
urban centers, and economic infeasibility, "says we won't do
it." Mr. Arno indicated that this bill would provide the Board
of Game with the tools to do predator-prey management in 15
percent of the state, at the most. He suggested airborne wolf
control and land-and-shoot wolf hunting are defensible tools for
predator-prey management. He again urged the passage of HB 208
from committee.
Number 1082
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Mr. Arno if any consideration had
been given to hunting wolves for bounties.
MR. ARNO said yes; in fact, legislation had been introduced to
do just that. He noted that bounty hunting existed prior to
statehood, and that he had been hunting since 1966. Mr. Arno
said prior to the board's ban on land-and-shoot [hunting] in
1991, what worked adequately was having trapper's licenses,
liberal bag limits, and seasons in place to allow persons to go
out in their own aircraft and do land-and-shoot hunting. Mr.
Arno said those hides were sold for up to $400 each, which
adequately paid for those few people who were proficient at
land-and-shoot wolf hunting. Until the land-and-shoot ban in
1991, he said that method alone, without the bounties, was
enough to keep wolf predation down.
Number 1225
ROBERT FITHIAN, Executive Director, Alaska Professional Hunter
Association, testified that the [hunting] industry annually
contributes well over $100 million to Alaska. He said
Article I, Section 1, of the state constitution defines the
inherent rights of the state's citizens, including the right to
life, liberty, happiness, and the rewards of their own industry;
it also states that all persons are equal and entitled to equal
rights. Furthermore, it closes with a statement that all
persons have corresponding obligations to the people of the
state. He remarked, "It's very unique to see that the first
section of our constitution lays out our rights but then closes
with a stewardship requirement for us."
MR. FITHIAN read Article VIII, Sections 3 and 4, to the
committee. He remarked, "It's sad to sit and look back on
Alaska and see where the tides of special interests advocating
for environmentalism by regulatory strangulation and natural
science have taken us to." He suggested this has contributed
much to the lack of natural resource economy, to pitting user
groups against each other, and to the decay of the way of life
of the people that depend on the state's wilderness and wildlife
resources to sustain themselves.
MR. FITHIAN said these tides have also left a high mark for
nonprudent stewardship of the state's resources. He suggested
that it is important [for user groups] to turn together and work
to help cement policies for governing the industry based on
common use, proven science, and constitutional mandates. He
suggested that it is important to note that in any geographical
areas of the state where the survival rate of moose, caribou, or
Dall sheep born annually falls below 10 percent, there's a
minimal chance at recoupment of these species.
MR. FITHIAN told members that the end result of this situation
is that status quo management policies will continue to pit user
groups against each other, and people dependent on wildlife will
be the losers. He said HB 208 is a start in the right direction
to relieve this situation and is not just a bill that adversely
affects the wolves of Alaska. The population of wolves in
Alaska has never been threatened or endangered, he suggested.
Urging the committee to support and pass the bill, he said HB
208 provides sustainability to Alaska's residents and the people
who depend on wildlife resources as a way of life.
Number 1425
CHAIR FATE announced that HB 208 would be held over and that
public testimony would resume on [4/2/03].